Slashdot Log In
Open Debate Between RIAA VP And DMCA Critic
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:28 PM
from the record-it-from-the-audience dept.
from the record-it-from-the-audience dept.
A GW student writes "The George Washington University's School of Engineering and Applied Science along with the Cyberspace Policy Institute are sponsoring some kind (hasn't really been decided yet) of debate between Stanley Pierre-Louis, Vice President Legal Affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America and Professor James Boyle of Duke Law School. Remember, Prof. Boyle just received an anonymous $1 million to fight the DMCA. The event is open to the public. It will take place on Tuesday October 8 in Washington, DC on GW's campus. The abstract and other details are here. Stick around, and the next day you can go to the Supreme Court to see Lawrence Lessig argue Eldred v. Ashcroft."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Open Debate Between RIAA VP And DMCA Critic
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A nice thought (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be good if they would encourage open debate on such subjects before they became la though, but I suppose any law which is bought in the interests of big business is at best one-sided.
I think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Will it be broadcasted? (Score:2, Insightful)
A haiku regarding this thread. (Score:1)
Trip to court over two days?
Sounds like a party!
A link to his book (Score:3, Informative)
See also Boyle's "Tensions" talk (Score:4, Interesting)
well as quite funny in parts.
Money well spent! (Score:2, Funny)
Its REALLY nice to see that slashdot sold the members information to spam companies and spent the money some place good! =)
News Coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Going too Far (Score:4, Funny)
It was only a matter of time.
but (Score:2)
Thanks must go to the donor. (Score:2, Insightful)
Stale Sites (Score:2)
Looks like you got to drag your meat body around instead of using your virtual one to visit the lecture with your game avatar.
[shrug]
Good luck getting into Eldred... (Score:1)
GWU P2P Policy (Score:5, Informative)
From: note@gwu.edu
Subject: New KaZaA Application Causes Network Problems
Over the past week, the GW data network has experienced heavy traffic and sporadic problems as a direct result of usage of the new KaZaA Version 2. KaZaA is a popular program used for direct file sharing, usually of media files (music, videos, etc.).
GW's network does not block peer-to-peer applications like Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus in an effort to maintain an open academic environment. However, network administrators do impose some bandwidth shaping on applications such as Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus to lower their priority and keep them from overwhelming all other GW data network traffic.
Unfortunately, the recent release of KaZaA Version 2 is causing network problems. KaZaA v2 is extremely adaptive, and appears to maliciously circumvent all controls and restrictions in place to limit use of bandwidth. As a result, the GW network is being overwhelmed by KaZaA v2 traffic.
Network traffic nearly doubled over the course of a week, overflowing the total capacity. As a result, network latency (the time it takes to return a
response) from GW to our nearest Internet provider increased over 200 times. This led to slowdowns to Webmail, the overall GWMail system and other applications.
ISS network administrators have determined that controls built into KaZaA Version 2 prohibit administrators from imposing bandwidth limitations. As a result, ISS has been forced to impose an overall rate-limit on the student residence halls, which produce the vast majority of KaZaA v2 traffic.
Network bandwidth is a shared common resource. Students who abuse this resource are sapping bandwidth from their peers. Please keep your usage of KaZaA v2 at a minimum and within the legal boundaries.
Please also be aware that KaZaA and other file sharing applications allow other users from around the world to download files *from you*, off of your bandwidth, which adds to the overall load on the GW network. GW strongly recommends that all users disable the file sharing option.
Network administrators and ISS management will continue to explore other solutions and, in the meantime, urge each member of the GW community to do their part in managing this shared resource.
Thank you.
(This message has been sent in accordance with George Washington University mass e-mail policy and procedure. This procedure is available online at http://helpdesk.gwu.edu for review. This message was requested by Information Systems and Services and was approved by the Chief Information Officer.)
Blah. (Score:1)
Anybody in DC Want to Stream This?? (Score:2)
NSync, Britney, etc etc etc (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the biggest problems I see with music copying is that US culture and the music industry have a symbiotic relationship. We crave and pay for entertainment that's snazzy and cool which the industry provides. However, many people don't want to pay for the one hit wonder and the grossly commericialized entertainer (ie Britney, NSync, etc.) since they know they won't listen to the record in 3 months anyway. On the other hand they do want the convenience of hearing the hits they want to hear when they want to hear them. Whether this insatiable demand and need for instant gratification is good is up for debate. On this basis though, the problem is that without a lot of money coming in it is difficult to feed the public more Britney, more NSync, etc. If that's what the public really wants, then they need to pay for it. The old model of deliver obviously doesn't jive with the new trends in demand. What's needed is a new platform and a new way to pay (ie. pay-per-play). Consider a best selling CD. Many people will only listen to every song once while they will listen to one or two of them over and over and over. Very very simply put the industry can calculate the current cost of a record subtract basically the net gain from lower production costs and add the amortized costs of additional infrastructure. The desired result? The public should be able to pay about the same for more accurately what they actually want to hear.
What do I do? Although infrequently, I download songs that I will listen to once or twice. These are generally the Top 40 songs you hear on the radio. I don't know why I listen to them at all. I don't particularly like any of them but whatever. Stuff that I will listen to for a long time (Elliott Smith, Lou Reed, Pearl Jam, etc.) I buy.
Dueling Lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
Time Cube Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Prediction: There will ne no debate (Score:5, Interesting)
With both issues, people would cry out, if we could only get along! If we could only communicate! but the problem was not commnication, it was that one side is trying to gain benefit at the expense of others by force or coercion.
The same is true here. There is no equivalancy relationship here. There is no misunderstanding between civilized individuals. There is simply a raw conflict of interest and no amount of debate is going to change that. We should not be debating with them, but within ourselves - what are we going to do about them? How can we break, beat, or contain them?
Im convinced that the only way to do that is by insisting on civil-disobedience of copyright laws whenever possible. It is only then, when we drain them of their revenue stream and power that we will win - otherwise we will just be feeding and strengthening the beast intent on killing us.
One nitpicking problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Although this is possible, it is certainly not the case. Mp3s are not 'perfect digital copies', yet mp3s are the files that (for the most part) are being ditributed. Perhaps when broadband gives us LAN speeds, we'll see wav files being traded to the point of mp3s. Until then, 'perfect digital copies' (of music) still require access to the origial media. (For most people.)
Most people can still listen to their cassettes and scratchy records and be fine with the imperfections, so mp3s with their ease of storage and portabillity won't be going away anytime soon. People want a convenient way to listen to music, be it 8-tracks, Cds, cassettes, LPs, mp3s, or what-have-you. Wav files aren't that convenient. Yet.
Open door.... (Score:4, Insightful)
At worst, I hope the more sensible people shout down the fanatics that are on the same side.
Previous debate between MPAA lawyer and a good guy (Score:2)
Enjoy.
Transcript (Score:1)
I would love to attend but seeing as air fare from Australia is a little costly...
If someone knows wether an official transcript will be made, please post it up.
Either that, or record (audio) the thing and put it in your Kazaa folder. Ironic - yes. Effective - you bet. Would I want a copy - hell, I'd pay for one. (but not much - see airfare above)
Re:1 million .... (Score:1)
I'd imagine that anybody who would give away $1,000,000 has a LOT of money elsewhere. Obviously I can't speak for the person(s) who donated the money, but I wouldn't be suprised if he/she donates to other good causes. (Especially since the donation was anonymous)
or..
it could just be a company whose income could possibly be at risk due to the DMCA. But lets all think positively and imagine it was done out of the goodness of someone's heart. *grin*
Re:CmdrTaco - US flag desecrator and anti-Delawari (Score:1)
Re:1 million .... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had the money I would give more to help out with this cause. We need to stop the government from allowing corporations to stomp on our rights solely for their benefit.
Re:What is wrong with Copyrights? (Score:1)
THEY DID LOOSE A SALE Your sale. are you then going to go buy what you already own because you know that keeping the copy you have is wrong. BULLSHIT!
You're assuming i would have bought it even if i couldn't download it. It never crossed your mind that if i can't listen to it for free, i am perfectly happy not listening to it at all.
So how exactly did they lose MY sale, if i decided the only price i'm willingto pay to listen to the music is $0.00?
Re:What is wrong with Copyrights? I'll tell you. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I do buy records. Will you argue that the RI has lost a sale because I didn't go out and purchase a new CD? None of that money I spend at thrift stores and garage sales finds its way to artists, labels, or distributors. Yet I get to hear lots of great music for 50 cents an album. Would I have purchased the same album on CD for 9-17 dollars? No.
CDs ARE too expensive. Recent 'Big Label' music is for the most part uninspired and focus group driven. Radio has been taken over by a marketing company. Whether or not you agree with me doesn't change the fact that the RIAA is trying to remove my ability to create and distribute my own music. They are trying to kill first sale rights (allows used cd/record stores.) and fair use (my ability to copy a CD FOR MY OWN USE).
They are extending copyrights far longer than most people live. They are looking out for their OWN interests, yet still want me to eat up the insipid pap they ram down the public's throat.
I make music. So do many others. The RIAA would have it that I would have to go through them (certificates, licencing, copy-restrictions) no matter what I want for the music I create.
To answer your subject's question: "What is wrong with Copyrights?"
Nothing. Copyrights were 'invented' to give an author of a work exclusive use of his/her work for a *limited* amount of time. The copyright would expire after the author had had ample time to make money from their creation. The work would then be placed in the public domain and others could use it as they saw fit. The work could be changed, reworked and released as a wholly new creation. Copyrights prevented someone from taking a work, placing their name on it, and calling it their own. These are the things that copyright was intended for. Your subject and the post that follows are two separate issues.
Copying a CD is not the same as shoplifting a CD. It is the difference between removing a physical item and duplicating a physical item.
(Simile time) The first is like stealing a dollar. The second is counterfeiting a dollar.
I agree that either one denies the author of the work his/her due payment for making the work available. (They didn't have to)
Long winded rant over. Mod to your heart's content.
Re:1 million .... (Score:1)
So nobody should fund anything that isn't as life threatening as cancer, which means all our space programs, weapons programs, telecommunications programs, everything, should halt, because we could be spending that money on Cancer research, or AIDs research.... Somehow I don't think so.
I get the jist of your comment but somehow think it's a bit overdoing it to say that it's not a worthwhile cause.
Re:What is wrong with Copyrights? (Score:1)
I'll just say that when we argue over "Did they lose a sale" or not, it's not a question of "Are you going to buy the CD you've just downloaded". Not at all. In my case for example, I think the Napster period got me to buy more CDs than I would have bought otherwise.
I explain. When downloading 96kbps MP3 over napster, I certainly never hoped to have a "CD quality" music. the whole point of that was to download tons of stuff for the sake of trying it. Then I discovered a lot of new artists and I actually bought some CDs I would never have bought otherwise. In this sense I think having installed Napster on my PC made my buy more CDs...
And for the cookies, please, don't be afraid, storing 50 bytes of plain text on your hard drive will not run you out of space.